mass shootings probably stopped because of gun control in australia

Author: linate

Posts

Total: 99
#61
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@Outplayz
I would say the same thing about abortion for the right?  They think Roe V Wade is going to be overturned.... it won't be.  It is just to get votes.  Then again, the left is marching thinking it will be, which is just as dumb, if not dumber.  Walk around in DC wearing vag hats to keep laws that are already on the books.  It's not even a protest, it's a protest on what they are afraid might happen.

That said, I agree with you, but both sides do it. 


#62
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@DBlaze
Maybe it is Karl Malone shipping to the inner cities for profit, like he doesn't have enough money as it is.  Or maybe they have nothing to do with it, which I would think is the case.  Maybe more people of color need to apply, or do you think they discriminate?  I highly doubt it.  

Remember, a lot of hunters and people that do this kind of thing for sport are white, so it makes sense.


Maybe Karl Malone is stripping the inner cities for profit.... he not a pristine Role Model anyways with his past paternity suits etc, but I also dont believe that because someone is Black that they have the best interests of Blacks at heart.

IDK that the NRA still discriminates but they certainly have in the past... and I have no idea of their current ideology but they certainly were racist at one time(see the NRA and the Black Panthers in the 1960's)

As far as the hunters etc, what you say makes sense

#63
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Outplayz
I could ask you the same thing... why are you so hell bent on banning assault rifles that only account for 2% of gun deaths? It makes no sense. Not only is it one of my favorite guns, it is also my preferred choice of weapon to protect myself with. In heated moments, my aim won't suffer and i don't have to worry about missing like i do with a handgun. It is my weapon of choice. You want to take that away from me and others that feel the same. Plus, all in all, it isn't logical at all since there is no such thing as "assault rifles" which means you won't be banning anything. It will not help, it will not make a difference banning "A-Rifles." It's a feel good law for the left and to get votes... it is pure ignorance of weapons that keeps your side blind to any lie you hear to get you to vote left.


Because 2% of innocent people being killed is 2% too many. 15,549 people were killed by guns last year. 2% of that is 310.... If 310 Terrorists killed people a year then I doubt you would have the same stance (ironically you would probable call for more guns though)



And I don't know what "side" your referring to and my lack of agreeing with you doesnt make me ignorant. I'm a free thinker Bro and dont lean "Left" (politically)

I also notice that you spend the majority of your post defending assault weapons (even calling them your favorite), then ending your post saying that they dont exist (boogle)

Makes me wonder if you even know what you are protesting


#64
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ravensjt

Because 2% of innocent people being killed is 2% too many. 15,549 people were killed by guns last year. 2% of that is 310.... If 310 Terrorists killed people a year then I doubt you would have the same stance (ironically you would probable call for more guns though)



And I don't know what "side" your referring to and my lack of agreeing with you doesnt make me ignorant. I'm a free thinker Bro and dont lean "Left" (politically)

I also notice that you spend the majority of your post defending assault weapons (even calling them your favorite), then ending your post saying that they dont exist (boogle)

Makes me wonder if you even know what you are protesting

Now you are just forcing something to be wrong by playing word games. Do you not get the implications of banning something that doesn't exist? Assault rifles by definition are already banned or restricted greatly. What you are talking about is banning rifles... which account for only 2% of gun deaths. That is nonsensical. You are trying to put the burden of "i don't care who dies on me" ... yes i do. That is why it is nonsensical. If you want to ban a gun that will make a difference, you ban handguns that account for up to the 80% tile worth of gun violence, but therein lies your ignorance of the implications of your words... you are talking about "gun bans" and you don't even know it. 

Unlike you, i am protesting dumb law. One, i do not want weapons banned bc i believe in the second amendment. And two, i am protesting doing stupid laws that won't fix anything in a quantifiable way. The laws that will have the most impact on gun violence aren't gun-control issues. Unless of course, you want to start banning weapons. Where do you stop. You ban rifles, you will notice people using shotguns. You ban shotguns, you will notice people using handguns. You ban bullets, all we are left with is 22 caliber BB guns. Your solution is a gun ban... so be honest about that. 

And to sides... the side you are on is correlative with the left's proposals on gun issues. I have no idea if you are left, i myself am a centrist. So, i do believe in "reasonable" gun-control laws. For instance, universal background checks. Other than that however, i am for enforcing the laws we have, and strengthening other non-gun control related laws. Getting rid of gun free zones would be one start. To do things that make a difference instead of dreaming of an entire gun ban. You can hold that belief if you want, but again, it is an ignorant belief that won't fix anything bc it won't happen and you shouldn't want it to happen as a free American (if that is where you live).     
#65
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@DBlaze
That said, I agree with you, but both sides do it. 

Yeah that is why i consider myself a Centrist. I can clearly see both sides acting like fools. They are the loud minority however, but still dangerous. Bc the loud minority is also the most motivated to get out and vote. Unlike most centrist that just sit on the sidelines. I honestly think the majority are centrists, it's just the majority isn't as motivated to get out and do dumb protests and get their voices heard. The biggest problem in politics is ignorance of politics. People voting a side without trying to understand the person's policy or personality. If everyone was informed, maybe things would be better and good law passed more quickly. Instead of protesting things they have no clue about that ultimately is frivolous as well. 
#66
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@Outplayz
So far, I don't see Centrist in you.  I see you being pretty much on the right.  Maybe not far right, but definitely on the right.
#67
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@DBlaze
Well that is the beauty of being Centrist. On gun issues i would say i am further right. However, on something like abortion that you mentioned i am pro-abortion. I will admit, i might be right leaning at this point, but that usually goes back and forth. I always hover in the center. For guns, i do believe there are some logical gun-control laws we can pass like universal background checks and/or making it law every state uses the NICS system. I would even be for registration, but i am not for that currently bc the left exists... i don't trust them not to take advantage of something like registration to ban guns. Those are basically the only two gun-control measures i believe would do anything to help gun violence. So i am mainly right on gun issues. 


#68
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
Were you on DDO and changed your username coming over here?
#69
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
making it law every state uses the NICS system. 
which states don't use the NICS system?  You must have an FFL to get a gun from another state or purchase from a dealer......
so if you wish to give one of  your guns to a spouse, parent, or child for example. they should be made to go through the NICS system?  What if they just wanted to borrow it?
gun registration is needed for bans and forced confiscation aka buy backs.
#70
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@DBlaze
No, same name on DDO but i was mainly in the religion forum. I only debated guns on politics... sometimes i think other things but mainly only the gun threads. 
#71
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@Outplayz
Gotcha, well I was DAvery79 if that means anything to you.
#72
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Isn't the NICS system the database where people that are found to be mentally unsafe to themselves or others are suppose to be uploaded to? I was under the impression that it isn't "required" by every state to upload onto the NICS system where about a couple million of these people aren't on the database when they should be.  
#73
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@DBlaze
Cool good to know. I will be using DDO again when it is functional so it's good to know so we don't do any double talk. Plus, i remember people more from their avatars than names lol. I'll have to check and see. 
#74
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
Isn't the NICS system the database where people that are found to be mentally unsafe to themselves or others are suppose to be uploaded to? I was under the impression that it isn't "required" by every state to upload onto the NICS system where about a couple million of these people aren't on the database when they should be.  
that's a different issue and not what you said, which is why I asked.


#75
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Oh okay... that is what i meant. I believe people that are a danger to themselves and others should not be allowed to get weapons. Also, i think that is the best way to define what kind of mental health shouldn't have access to weapons. I hate it when people say bi polar or depressed people shouldn't have guns either... that is just stupid. But... if someone is found to be a danger to themselves and others... maybe they shouldn't have a gun. It makes no sense to me why every state doesn't enforce that they must be on the NICS system. A lot of people that are a danger can get a gun... which just isn't a good idea.

What you were referring to is a harder question when it comes to private sellers. Yes, just letting someone borrow your gun and having to get a background check to do so would be annoying. But, understand that private sellers that have bad intentions can abuse this current system. But, i don't see how you can enforce people with bad intentions. They will do it with a law or not. The only people a law for private sellers to go through NICS would effect is good people. I don't even think it would deter someone that wants to sell guns to a gang member for example. So, i don't believe in the private seller thing other than a non-gun control law such as harsh punishments for people selling guns in bulk for illegal activity. 

Registration without the fear of gun confiscation would be a good idea. It would be much easier to track back criminal use of a gun. But like i said... the left exists so i would never be for registration bc i am sure they will use it for buy backs and confiscation. The left hurts the left.  
#76
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
we generally agree, though I would offer, you don't track a gun until a crime is committed and even then it has to be found.  I have never been able to envision a useful benefit to registration vs the risk.

Something I have talked about in the past is linking criminal records to something like a driver's licence.  Criminal records are public info so it wouldn't be a big deal.  But allow me to run a private NICS check on my phone or put a code on a d.l. that says that person is prohibited from purchasing a firearm.  People will generally do the right thing so long as you enable and empower them to do so.  Technology being what it is, it's not that difficult imo.
#77
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Reg vs. the risk i agree with you. Your idea is good but it wouldn't stop illegal selling of guns. People with the intention to sell to criminals wouldn't need to look at the license. I guess it would help a little to not sell to a criminal on accident, so it is good in that way. But the best way is to make harsh laws that would deter someone from doing it in the first place. Maybe something like 10 years, no plea, if caught selling a weapon knowingly to someone that used it in a crime. I think harsh punishments deter. But, if someone knows they will just serve a month, they don't care. I went to jail twice, not passed the holding cells, but i noticed people there were happy to be there. Jail has "regulars" ... One guy said, "i'm back, time to hang out with the homies for a couple months." That is a criminals mentality. The guy was caught for having a loaded gun selling drugs next to a school. They don't care if the punishment isn't harsh. 
#78
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
totally agree the judicial system, crime and punishment needs a major upgrade in a great many of ways.  It's sad if you look at some of the worst straw purchasers and what their punishment was.
6 straw purchases, up to 10 years but you know they never serve the full time

dude read this one    two years probation 

and this one, she actually gave the gun to a guy who killed other people, sentenced a year

3 sentenced for 'straw-purchasing' and exporting 101 firearms to Mexico
 were each sentenced to 46 months

that was a quick search, do these seem appropriate to anyone?
#79
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
While there are people that decided to take some LSD doing years... it is so broken. Punishment is suppose to be a deter ... and fuck no... all those you put up should be in jail for years. We can reduce crime dramatically if criminals were scared of the system. I'm kinda a part of the problem bc i am a paralegal helping others circumvent the law... but, that isn't my fault.. it's there when it shouldn't be there. But you know what the funny thing is coming back to the OP... as much as criminals do not care to break the law, they are scared to break into a person's house bc you know what... that punishment is permanent. At least we are doing that right although there are people dumb enough to try and take that away.  
#80
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
What reason would anyone have to own a weapon whose sole reason for existence is to kill many humans? Other than being severely mentally unstable?
#81
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
it's amazing you see some of these people getting sentenced and they act like it's no big deal, even after the 2nd time, you are right about the punishment, it's not enough of a deterrent.
I have my paralegal degree, but never used it or worked in the field.  But wish I would have, could have, starting over from scratch....just couldn't do it, but that's another story :)
#82
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Outplayz
Now you are just forcing something to be wrong by playing word games. Do you not get the implications of banning something that doesn't exist? Assault rifles by definition are already banned or restricted greatly. What you are talking about is banning rifles... which account for only 2% of gun deaths. That is nonsensical. You are trying to put the burden of "i don't care who dies on me" ... yes i do. That is why it is nonsensical. If you want to ban a gun that will make a difference, you ban handguns that account for up to the 80% tile worth of gun violence, but therein lies your ignorance of the implications of your words... you are talking about "gun bans" and you don't even know it.

I most certainly know that I am talking about a step by step banning of guns....starting with assault weapons that you say both exist and don't exist. I never said you dont care who dies, that either means:

1. You putting something on me that others have said to you
2. Your conscious talking to you

either way, debate what I say, not what you misinterpret 


 

Unlike you, i am protesting dumb law. One, i do not want weapons banned bc i believe in the second amendment. And two, i am protesting doing stupid laws that won't fix anything in a quantifiable way. The laws that will have the most impact on gun violence aren't gun-control issues. Unless of course, you want to start banning weapons. Where do you stop. You ban rifles, you will notice people using shotguns. You ban shotguns, you will notice people using handguns. You ban bullets, all we are left with is 22 caliber BB guns. Your solution is a gun ban... so be honest about that. 


We can debate the 2nd Amendment and it's original intent in another thread. I was honest alrdy about my stance on gun bans. You really should ask instead of trying to sound smarter than you are as it pertains to me

And to sides... the side you are on is correlative with the left's proposals on gun issues. I have no idea if you are left, i myself am a centrist. So, i do believe in "reasonable" gun-control laws. For instance, universal background checks. Other than that however, i am for enforcing the laws we have, and strengthening other non-gun control related laws. Getting rid of gun free zones would be one start. To do things that make a difference instead of dreaming of an entire gun ban. You can hold that belief if you want, but again, it is an ignorant belief that won't fix anything bc it won't happen and you shouldn't want it to happen as a free 



And my stance on this issue has nothing to do with my politics, unlike you (I assume) I can be "liberal" on some issues and "conservative" on others, I am a free thinker and dont let others do it for me.

Universal background checks are useless when weapons are stolen or sold on the Black Market.... unless you are willing to punish the Seller or original Owner when a weapon is used in a crime, I would compromise with that.

Getting rid of gun free zones is illogical and whats truly nonsensical is thinking that having more guns in more areas will create less crime. Fender benders and arguments and fist fights would be a thing of the past and the ridiculous notion of "stand your ground" would overrun the judicial system (imo)
#83
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ravensjt
of course you are correct criminals don't follow laws hence the term.  Gun free zones in their current definition and state tend to be horribly inadequate.  The issue I have with them is hanging up a sign is useless and meaning less.  If you aren't going to put in actual security then you shouldn't attempt to claim it as a "gun free zone"  Have a do not enter sign isn't much use if the door isn't locked.  I know you hate analogies but.....

as far as holding the seller or owner liable, I'm glad  you brought that up.  In the future for any vehicle or gun I may sell I'll be adding a waiver and indemnifier clause to all bills of sale.  Afaik there's no liability or restriction or prohibition to sell a car to someone with many dui's, and the seller is not responsible should they commit more or injuries with the car.

would you support a tax payer funded store that acts as a used gun shop which would require background checks?  Let's say I want to sell a gun, I give it to them and they sell it for what I'm asking, they do the background check on the purchaser and I get my money.  While pawn shops and gun stores do this, they take a pretty good chunk of the money.  But since this would be tax payer funded it would be a very nominal fee.  This could be done rather inexpensively if it's an online store, mostly, and the physical location is at a local police station (just a random thought)

#84
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
of course you are correct criminals don't follow laws hence the term.  Gun free zones in their current definition and state tend to be horribly inadequate.  The issue I have with them is hanging up a sign is useless and meaning less.  If you aren't going to put in actual security then you shouldn't attempt to claim it as a "gun free zone"  Have a do not enter sign isn't much use if the door isn't locked.  I know you hate analogies but.....

I would imagine (I'm not sure) that having a gun in a "Gun Free Zone" would increase the penalty if a gun is used in the location...or better yet, it would be a crime to just have a gun in such a zone.


as far as holding the seller or owner liable, I'm glad  you brought that up.  In the future for any vehicle or gun I may sell I'll be adding a waiver and indemnifier clause to all bills of sale.  Afaik there's no liability or restriction or prohibition to sell a car to someone with many dui's, and the seller is not responsible should they commit more or injuries with the car.

But it is a crime in many places to knowingly let someone drive your car while intoxicated (DUI by consent). So with that in mind, having a gun around a person who may have violent or an abusive history should be charged too (imo)


would you support a tax payer funded store that acts as a used gun shop which would require background checks?  Let's say I want to sell a gun, I give it to them and they sell it for what I'm asking, they do the background check on the purchaser and I get my money.  While pawn shops and gun stores do this, they take a pretty good chunk of the money.  But since this would be tax payer funded it would be a very nominal fee.  This could be done rather inexpensively if it's an online store, mostly, and the physical location is at a local police station (just a random thought)


Lets say that things go as you described, then the Purchaser has his gun stolen and that gun is used to commit a crime, In my compromise, the Purchaser would be punished which nullifies the senario.  

I'm ignorant when it comes to BC's (background checks), are they not often done because of the fee? Unless I'm missing something, it seems that's the only thing your senario addresses.


#85
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ravensjt

I would imagine (I'm not sure) that having a gun in a "Gun Free Zone" would increase the penalty if a gun is used in the location...or better yet, it would be a crime to just have a gun in such a zone.

except that additional penalty after the fact is pretty meaningless to the dead.  sure if would be a crime to have a gun in such zone, provided you find it.  security that prevents the gun from entering the zone is far more effective than a sign and conditions you mentioned which are more reactive that proactive imo.

But it is a crime in many places to knowingly let someone drive your car while intoxicated (DUI by consent). So with that in mind, having a gun around a person who may have violent or an abusive history should be charged too (imo)
history of, known or unknown, not currently intoxicated.  It was in reference to "punish the Seller or original Owner"

Lets say that things go as you described, then the Purchaser has his gun stolen and that gun is used to commit a crime, In my compromise, the Purchaser would be punished which nullifies the senario.  
so the officer who had his gun stolen out of his car that killed Kate Steinle should have been charged?  Police do get their guns stolen as do people in the military, they should be put in jail for crimes committed with their guns?  Or the guy who sells a car and that car is used for a terrorist attack, dui death, whatever?
if you are talking about straw purchasers then I would agree and that already be a law, though probably not enforced much or a very light punishment

I'm ignorant when it comes to BC's (background checks), are they not often done because of the fee? Unless I'm missing something, it seems that's the only thing your senario addresses.
There is no convenient or useful way for a private citizen to do a background check that I know of.  Aside from selling it on consignment which is expensive.  Or trying to set up a time to meet with an ffl to do the transfer, some of whom charge $50.  Since this is voluntary it is my opinion that if the system was convenient and removed potential financial barriers people would do background checks voluntarily if there was a system that allowed for it.


#86
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It's actually really hard "starting" work as a paralegal. That is something they never teach you in school. I applied to probably about 100 places when i just got my license and no one called back. But, in the end i got lucky. My mom's a hairstylist and had an attorney client that hooked me up with a job. As soon as i got 3 years experiences... working for cheap btw, it was easier to get interviews and work in the field. What i like about being a paralegal is once you have the experience you can always find a job. That is why i went this route... it's sorta recession proof. Plus, you are also your own boss which is needed for my type of personality. I'm not very much a team player lol. 
#87
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
I loved the classes, made the Dean's list every semester except my last, made the President's list then :)  A bunch of us all got laid off at the same time, there was no work so thought it was time to change fields.  However as soon as I graduated with my degree I was offered a full time job doing what I know how to do and had been doing for 10 years.  I couldn't pass it up, since then I've been fortunate or unfortunate to continue on in my field, depends on how you look at it lol.  I'd have to take a large pay cut to start out as a paralegal unfortunately.
#88
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ravensjt
I most certainly know that I am talking about a step by step banning of guns....starting with assault weapons that you say both exist and don't exist. I never said you dont care who dies, that either means:

You specifically gave a number of people dying and sad i must not care... so you can't just tuck tail and say you didn't imply that of me. And, i am not a mind reader... i am judging you off what you say and i didn't know you are a full gun ban type until you just said it here. You should be straight forward about that in the beginning since you are a fringe type of belief people don't assume first. 

We can debate the 2nd Amendment and it's original intent in another thread. I was honest alrdy about my stance on gun bans. You really should ask instead of trying to sound smarter than you are as it pertains to me
It's original intent was to have an armed citizenry to fight injustice foreign or domestic. But i guess i digress if you don't want to talk about it. I never heard you say you want a full gun ban. Thank for telling me i am smart enough to start deducing it. 

And my stance on this issue has nothing to do with my politics, unlike you (I assume) I can be "liberal" on some issues and "conservative" on others, I am a free thinker and dont let others do it for me.

Universal background checks are useless when weapons are stolen or sold on the Black Market.... unless you are willing to punish the Seller or original Owner when a weapon is used in a crime, I would compromise with that.

Getting rid of gun free zones is illogical and whats truly nonsensical is thinking that having more guns in more areas will create less crime. Fender benders and arguments and fist fights would be a thing of the past and the ridiculous notion of "stand your ground" would overrun the judicial system (imo)
Free thinker or not... you fall under a specific group. It is just words to define what type of policy you are giving. The left's thinking is to ban guns, so you have a leftist view on guns. Who cares... i call myself centrist bc that is what best defines free thinking... it's still a position people will understand when i say it. When you say "free thinker" no one knows where you stand until you start talking... if you like being a little deceptive as your style of getting information... whatever, that's cool with me. 

Universal background checks aren't "useless", but if you mean in regards to a sale that is under the table... well, obviously. And yes... if it is an illegal sale of a firearm... i believe the punishment should be severe, especially if it is used in the commission of a crime. I believe harsh law is a deterrent when it acts like a deterrent. If 1 years worth of torture for selling to a criminal was the case.. a lot less people would sell to criminals. But are law isn't harsh and i don't like that. 

Where is your proof that it turns into the wild west if there are no GFZ? Vermont would be a slap in the face to your logic above. What we know is that in 1996 the GFZ act was passed. What we also know is things like school shootings rocketed. Could it be a correlation? I think it is, although not a cause, but a correlation. When you have a sign that no one can enforce.. it is useless. At the very least, have armed guards protect every place that is a GFZ... at least. 

You know what the irony to all this is... i think it is people like you that are causing the deaths of so many people. Get rid of guns, you are killing people bc more would die, get raped, robbed, if they can't protect themselves. More kids dead in schools bc there is no one to protect them, or they can't protect themselves. Every policy you are proposing will lead to more death than the alternative. Bc guns are a deterrent to criminals. Without them... it would likely look a lot like our neighbors in central and south america.  
#89
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What do you currently do? 
#90
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
I'm in the medical field, technical aspect, semi patient care, it sucks, most of the medical care jobs suck.  that has been my observation in almost 25 years of doing it.